of this article is to bring home the folly of belief in naturalistic
evolution. The point is belabored intentionally because evolutionists
frequently argue that probability considerations do not disprove
Unfortunately, in the long run, the unjustified materialistic
assumptions of modern scientific naturalism can only prove a serious
embarrassment to modern science. Evolutionary science today is in the
unenviable position of the emperor with no clothes on. No one has the
daring to tell the poor man he is naked until a little child exclaims
what is obvious to everyone. Modern science, in its naturalistic
speculation, is naked today, with only a few
"children"—non-evolutionary and creationist scientists—willing to
shout the obvious.
Magic in the World: Everything We See From Nothing at All
illustrate the embarrassment of modern science by considering its
attempt to explain the origin of the material universe from either 1)
literally nothing or 2) virtually nothing. Equally embarrassing is its
attempt to explain life from non-life.
In fact, two
of the most unbelievable scenarios of the modern evolutionary story
are that 1) nothing created the material universe and 2) lifeless
matter created all living diversity in its endless life forms.
these scenarios are so implausible that, rationally, they must be
considered nonsense. In fact, both assumptions are flat out
Probability of Life
The laws of
probability govern all kinds of daily activities from calculating
insurance rates to large purchase orders. The science of probability
is one of the trustworthiest disciplines there is. And it has a
logical bearing on the issue of origins:
The laws of probability
are proven trustworthy. The whole of science and every day practical
living is based on the reliability of the probable happening and the
improbable not. One need do no more than be consistent with this
accepted standard of reality when considering what to believe in
relation to the origin of life.1
reads through the literature on evolution that discusses the
probability of the evolution of life, one finds all sorts of
euphemisms for the word impossible including "terribly low;" "not
conceivable;" "infinitesimally small;" "highly implausible" and
appear that these terms are used because there is no other choice. To
really believe in what is impossible is absurd. Evolutionary
scientists do not want to be seen as believers of the absurd.
We have no
qualms about using the word "impossible" if it fits. And when
considering naturalistic evolution, no other word is even adequate.
cite Nobelist Dr. George Wald who concluded that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism was impossible. He went on to say
that, even so, he chose to believe that spontaneous generation
occurred because after all, here we are. He argued that time was the
hero of the plot.
ways, time is the hero of the plot for the evolutionist. It’s even a
"deity" of sorts. The evolutionist says that time and chance created
life whereas the theist says that God created life. The problem is
that time and chance cannot produce miracles. Contrary to Dr. Wald’s
assertion, time cannot make the impossible inevitable. Even infinite
time cannot change an apple into a helicopter or a frog into a prince.
To think so is to believe either in absurdities or fairy tales. As Dr.
Gish illustrates in his Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No (1995 p.
Frog + time (instantaneous) > Prince = nursery tale
Frog + time (300 million years) > Prince = science
fact that we exist does not prove evolution occurred, unless one
assumes that life only originates by naturalistic evolution. At this
point, many evolutionists criticize creation scientists for making the
same kinds of assumptions they make. Creationists argue the fact of
the impossibility of evolution proves creation. Evolutionists argue
that the fact of life proves evolution.
evolution really proven? Is it even probable? Is it even possible?
what we have to do is to evolve life. We only have chance and dead
matter or lifeless chemicals to start the process. These must make the
leap to a small prebiotic molecule (e.g., an amino acid, sugar,
nucleic acid base). This molecule must then make an incredible leap to
a larger molecule (e.g., a polymer of amino acids). Then there is an
even greater leap to the first primitive cell and then the unheard of
leap to the first form of complex life such as an eucaryote cell
having an organized nucleus bound by a membrane. Then evolution has to
produce every living thing.
W. R. Bird,
author of a definitive critique of evolution, The Origin of Species
Revisited points out that for the evolution of life, "Such small
probabilities are treated as impossibility under statistical rules, in
the context of the possible number of events in the entire universe
during its entire age."2
evolutionists will admit the impossibility of evolution. For example,
Ambrose of the University of London writes concerning the emergence of
new species, "the probability is so small in terms of the known age of
the universe that it is effectively zero."3
and non-evolutionists that have studied probability considerations
have long argued that, for all practical purposes, they show evolution
to be impossible. What evolutionists don’t want to admit is that, even
when you adjust for their criticisms of probability calculations, the
effect is still to make evolution an impossibility.4
Let’s consider some examples of scientists and researchers who have
Walter James ReMine in his impressive anti-evolutionary text, The
Biotic Message, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is
impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion
machine is impossible in probability…. A practical person must
conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."5
Evolution Really Possible?" Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of
Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, concludes his
discussion by noting that "All calculations made of the probability
[that life could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion that] there
could have been no possibility of the random appearance of life…."6
article, "The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools," David J.
Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, shows that given all the time
evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living
organism could be produced by mutations "is so small as to constitute
a scientific impossibility" — "the chance that it could have happened
anywhere in the universe… is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942."7
A figure like this is termed exponential notation, and is the figure
one with almost three million zeros after it. Figures like this are
terminal to evolution. (We will discuss exponential notation shortly.)
article, Dr. Rodabaugh takes the argument to absurd levels to show
that "It is impossible that evolution occurred." Even giving evolution
every conceivable chance and even "assuming that evolution is 99.9999%
certain, then ‘evolution [still] has only a 1 in 10132
chance of being valid…. Therefore, even with the beginning assumption
that evolution is a virtual certainty, a conditional probability
analysis of the fossil record [alone] results in the conclusion that
evolution is a demonstrable absurdity.’"8
the French expert on probability, Emile Borél, his "single law of
chance" (1 chance in 1050)
beyond which things never occur, "carries with it a certainty of
another nature than mathematical certainty… it is comparable even to
the certainty with which we attribute to the existence of the external
we see that one chance in 10132
is no chance.
probability and other calculations, James F. Coppedge, author of
Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, concludes concerning the origin of
chirality, or "left-handed" amino acids that,
No natural explanation is
in sight which can adequately explain the mystery that proteins use
only left-handed components. There is little hope that it will be
solved in this way in the future. Even if such a result occurred by
chance, life would still not exist. The proteins would be helpless
and nonliving without the entire complicated DNA-RNA system to make
copies for the future.10
odds against the necessary group of proteins being all left-handed ‘is
beyond all comprehension.’"11
reader can see, when we employ probability calculations relative to
the origin of life, we end up with very large numbers, unimaginably
large numbers. In part, that’s the problem. These numbers are so
incomprehensible they almost become meaningless. Nevertheless, if
evolutionists can use an incomprehensible billions of years of earth
history to make evolution seem feasible, we can also use
incomprehensible numbers to show the absurdity of evolution, even if
these numbers do tend to bend the mind at dizzying speeds.
Comprehending Large Numbers
To help the
reader understand large numbers, we have prepared a chart of
illustrations. Again, these very large numbers are written using
exponential notation. Thus, for ease of writing, rather than write out
all the zeros in a large number, the number of zeros is placed above
the number 10. For example, the figure one million, having six zeros,
is written exponentially as 106;
one billion, with nine zeros, is 109;
one trillion, with twelve zeros, is 1012,
etc. The kinds of numbers we are dealing with involve hundreds to
billions of zeroes, depending on what we are trying to calculate and
the odds assigned to a given event. (In the calculations below, the
odds cited are often skewed vastly in favor of evolution. This shows
that even given odds that were not present, evolution is still
let’s show you what 1050
looks like written out: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It would require hundreds of
millions of years just to count a number this large.
If we say an
event has one chance in 1050
of occurring, this is what we refer to. Again, this figure represents
Borél’s "single law of chance," the odds beyond which things never
occur. One chance in 1050
is an unimaginably small number—it’s one chance in 100 trillion,
trillion, trillion, trillion. One chance in a billion is an almost
infinitely greater chance for an event to occur. If the one billion
people in China each bought one lottery ticket, each person’s chance
of winning would be one in 109—one
chance in a billion. So how much money do you think an evolutionist
would bet on the lottery if the odds of winning were one chance in 1050?
could only be considered a fool if they bet their entire life savings
on even one chance in a thousand—1 in 103.
The irony is that evolutionists are gambling on an issue far more
vital to them than retirement money with, for all practical purposes,
literally infinite odds against them. They are gambling on the nature
of ultimate reality, the odds that materialism is true and theism
false. If probability calculations relative to prophecy and other
considerations prove Christian theism true12—and
heaven or hell hang in the balance—one might assume people would be
very cautious about the risks they take. Apparently not.
chart, Comparison of Exponential Numbers, we can see how big
exponential numbers truly are. We ask the reader to now look over this
chart. Ponder its comparisons in order to get a "feel" for the kinds
of numbers we are dealing with. Only this will help us realize the
kinds of odds against evolution that we are discussing.
Comparison of Exponential Numbers
Comparisons of Time
Seconds in one year 31.6 million.
Seconds in 15 billion years 1018.
In 15 billion years, there
are 1030 picoseconds. (A
picosecond is one-trillionth of a second.) .
Comparisons of Weight
A whale weighs 2,000 tons or 6.4 X
The earth weighs
5,882,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons or 1026
ounces or 1027grams (one gram is 1/450 of a pound).
Our Milky Way galaxy weighs 3 X 1044
Comparisons of Distance
The distance to the nearest
star 4.3 light years or 40 trillion kilometers or 1022
microns (a micron is 1/25,000 of an inch).
Comparisons of Size
The circumference of the earth
is 26,000 miles or 1.6 X 109
The diameter of the "known"
universe is an estimated 30 billion light years or
192,000,000,000,000,000 miles or 1027
The number of grains of sand that
would fill one beach is trillions and trillions. Yet 10100
grams of sand would fill the entire universe.
Comparisons of Measure
Atoms are very small.
One million hydrogen atoms can be lined up, one on top of the
other, on the edge of a piece of paper. 3,000 trillion of
them are needed just to cover the period at the end of this
A measly 1/4 teaspoon of water has
molecules, but the estimated number of atoms in the
entire universe is "only" 1079.
The total number of electrons and
protons in the universe is 1080.
The total number of smallest
particles that would fill the universe is 10120.
It takes 2.5 X 1015
electrons, laid side by side, to make one inch. Counting all
these electrons at one per second would require 76 million
material that follows, we are going to discuss the odds of two very
"simple" things evolving: 1) a molecule and 2) a cell. Remember that
thousands and millions of these are needed for life to evolve, and not
even the higher forms of life. To begin, consider the following
information about molecules:
• A single
drop of blood has 35,000,000 red blood cells.
• A single
red blood cell has 280,000,000 hemoglobin molecules, each molecule
having 10,000 atoms.
• A single
man has 27,000,000,000,000 (27 X 1012)
red blood cells.
are so small that 1/4 teaspoon of water has 1024
of them. Molecules vary from the simple to the complex. A simple
molecule may consist of only a few bonded atoms, as in water
(two atoms hydrogen; one atom oxygen). A complex molecule of
protein may have 50,000 amino acids or chains of simpler
The Odds of
a Complex Molecule
astronomer Fred Hoyle uses the Rubik cube to illustrate the odds of
getting a single molecule, in this case a biopolymer. Biopolymers are
biological polymers, i.e., large molecules such as nucleic acids or
proteins. In the fascinating illustration below, he calls the idea
that chance could originate a biopolymer "nonsense of a high order":
At all events, anyone
with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede
the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind
person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind
persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the
chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You
then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of
the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only
biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be
arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth
is evidently nonsense of a high order.13
provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of
high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation.
He assumes 500 trillion shakings per second plus a liquid material
volume equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would
billions of years." Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance,
it is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed,
requiring compound probability calculations for each successive
molecule. His logical conclusion is that "it is totally impossible to
account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life."14
years ago, scientist Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and
Evolution, wrote that, "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of
the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."15
creation scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, authors of
The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, point out
that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a
functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16
"Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in
the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good
luck as an explanation for how life began."17
Now, if a figure as "small" as 5 chances in 10191
is referenced by such a statement, then what are we to make of the
kinds of probabilities below that are infinitely less? The mind simply
boggles at the remarkable faith of the materialist.
Coppedge, the probability of evolving a single protein molecule over 5
billion years is estimated at 1 chance in 10161.
This even allows some 14 concessions to help it along which would not
actually be present during evolution.18
Again, this is no chance.
that the smallest theoretical cell is made up of 239 proteins.
Further, at least 124 different types of proteins are needed for the
cell to become a living thing. But the simplest known self-reproducing
organisms is the H39
strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) containing 625 proteins with an average of
400 amino acids in each protein.
probability of the occurrence of the smallest theoretical life is only
one chance in 10119,879
and the years required for it to evolve would be 10119,841
years or 10119,831
times the assumed age of the earth!19
The probability of this smallest theoretical cell of 239 proteins
evolving without the needed 124 different types of proteins to make up
a living cell, i.e., the chance of evolving this "helpless group of
non-living molecules" in over 500 billion years is one chance in 10119,701.20
Dr. David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic chance that life
would spontaneously generate (even on 1023
planets) as only one chance in 102,999,940.21
are talking about giving evolution every conceivable chance to evolve
a single protein molecule or the smallest theoretical cell, the odds
are still impossible.22
In the 1970s
Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the mathematical probability that a
single bacterium could be spontaneously generated. He determined the
chance of this occurring was 1 in 1040,000.
confessed what most scientists are, strangely, unwilling to confess,
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one
to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros after it]. It is enough to
bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval
soup, neither on this planet or on any other, and if the beginnings of
life were not random they must therefore have been the product of
Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, gave a far more realistic
"probability" for a single bacterium. He calculated the odds of a
single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary
were 1 chance in 10100,000,000,000.24
is so large it would require a library of approximately 100,000 books
just to write it out! Ponder that!
In his book,
Origins—A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert
Shapiro comments concerning the probabilities calculated by Morowitz,
involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it
reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given
such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to
the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were
to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.25
numbers are unimaginable. That’s why even scientists don’t know what
to do with them. Consider that a given individual’s chance of winning
the state lottery is about one in ten million. The odds of winning
each successive week involve the multiplication of probabilities so
that the odds of winning the lottery every single week of your life
from the age of 18 to 99, a period of 80 years, is 1 chance in 4.6 X
other words, it is infinitely more likely that you would win the
lottery every week of your life consecutively, from the day you were
born, without missing even one winning weekly ticket, for 80 years,
than it is that we would have the spontaneous generation of a simple
Dr. Howard B. Holroyd refers to the book, Mathematics and the
Imagination, where the authors, Kasner and Newman, name the extremely
large number 10100,
a "googol." Noting the fact that there could only, at most, have been
4.8 X 1038
possible mutations in all the life forms throughout the history of
earth Dr. Holroyd writes,
It is not possible in a
googol of operations to select at random, from the possible infinity
of forms, the shapes and arrangements of the dextral and sinistral
bones of even one mammal…. Let us recognize that if a result depends
upon a hundred factors, and if the probability of getting each one
right is 1 in 10, then the probability of getting the whole 100
right is only one in a googol.27
also discusses factorial numbers. A factorial number is a number that
multiplies each successive number by the next number. So ten factorial
would be to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 X 9 X 10. Seventy
factorial is around a googol (1.198 X 10100).
Sir Arthur Eddington estimated the total number of electrons and
protons in the entire universe as approximately 3.145 X 1079.
This is infinitely less than 100 factorial, which equals 9.3 X 10157.
But when it comes to evolution, we are not dealing with 100 factorial
but millions X millions factorial. To illustrate, there are 5,000
fibers in the auditory nerve of man that may be connected to the brain
in 5,000-factorial ways—and probably only one is correct. The optic
nerve has about one million fibers, and these may be connected to the
brain in one million factorial ways. The odds they could have been
connected correctly by chance cannot even be written out longhand.
Holroyd proceeds to show by several other examples how absurd belief
in chance evolution is. He points out that the straight hydrocarbon
has about 6.25 X 1013
isomers. It would be impossible for the entire human race, working
full time for four billion years, just to study all the isomers of
this single organic molecule of no great size.28
(Yet it just happened to evolve by chance.) When we consider there are
ten billion cells in the cerebral cortex, that there are several
trillion nerve connections between cells in the brain, plus many other
amazing factors, it becomes "preposterous beyond words" to believe
that all this originated by chance:
Surely the probability of
the whole body is far less than that of any of the internal organs:
that of two eyes to send two images over two cables of 1,000,000
conductors each to form one image is less than that of one eye; and
surely that of one eye is much less than merely taking the bones of
the skeleton and placing them into their proper positions. [—which
he calculates as 1 chance in approximately 5.6 X10388.]29
here is that the existence of mankind—or of living things
generally—isn’t just one miracle, it is a succession of innumerable
miracles. Every beneficial combination of factors to produce the
simplest mechanism for evolution to occur would require more miracles.
All this and
more are why evolution can rationally be classified as one of the
"worst superstitions of all time."30
And it explains why Dr. Holroyd is correct in concluding that
evolution is not just physical and mathematical nonsense, "it is
logical nonsense as well, for a sound thinker does not assume anything
which must be deduced from his theory."31
now we have some idea of the odds against evolution. Neither words nor
figures can adequately convey them. But two final illustrations may
cross-country drive, co-author John Weldon drove through the great
state of Texas. As he drove through Texas, he was reminded of an
illustration of Professor Don Stoner used in our book on messianic
In that book we showed that the odds that, by chance alone, Jesus
would fulfill only eight Old Testament prophecies, was 1 in 1017.
To illustrate how infinitesimal such a chance is we used the state of
Texas. First, we filled the entire state of Texas two feet deep with
silver dollars. We marked one with an "X" and stirred up all the
silver dollars throughout the state. Then, we blindfolded, say, an
evolutionist, had him drive anywhere he wished in the state of Texas,
stop, get out of his car, reach down into the silver dollars and pick
one out. The odds that he would find the one marked silver dollar are
1 in 1017, or
one in one hundred quadrillion, or one in 100 million billion. Now,
anyone who has driven through Texas knows how long it takes. You drive
and drive and drive for hours before you reach another state. If you
imagine that as you drive, everywhere you look, the land is covered
with silver dollars two feet deep, the mind boggles—and yet your field
of vision from the road is only an infinitesimal part of Texas. To
drive the entire state so that you saw every acre would take years.
number, one chance in 1017,
is nothing compared to one chance in 101,000,
the chance distinguished evolutionists gave for the formation of a
simply precursor to life. Trying to comprehend one chance in 10100,000,000,000,
the chance development of a simple bacterium, would drive one insane.
In telling us to believe that such odds are not only conceivable but
also probable, evolutionists would drive us all bananas.
and Gigantic Balls
final illustration, again of a number infinitely smaller than 101,000.
How large is
the number one in 10157?
contains 157 zeros. Let us try to illustrate the size of this number.
are very small objects. They are much, much smaller than atoms. As
noted, it would take 2.5 times 1015
of them, laid side-by-side, just to make one inch. Even if we counted
four electrons every second and counted day and night, it would still
take us 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one-inch
But how many
electrons are we dealing with in 10157
electrons? Imagine building a solid ball of electrons that would
extend in all directions from the earth a length of 6 billion light
years. The distance in miles of just one light year is 6.4 trillion
miles. That would be an incredibly big ball! But not big enough to
In order to
do that, you must take that big ball of electrons reaching the length
of 6 billion light years long in all directions and multiply it by 6 x
1028! How big
is that? It’s the length of the space required to store trillions and
trillions and trillions of the same gigantic balls and more. In fact,
the space required to store all of these balls combined together would
just start to "scratch the surface" of the number of electrons we
would need to really accurately speak about 10157.
you have some idea of the number of electrons we are talking about,
now imagine marking just one of those electrons in that huge number.
Stir them all up. Then appoint an evolutionist to travel in a rocket
for as long as he wants, anywhere he wants to go in a 30 billion light
year diameter. Tell him to stop and segment a part of space, then take
a high-powered microscope and find that one marked electron in that
segment. What do you think would be his chances for success? It would
be one in 10157.
small is one chance in 10157?
The number 10157
can be further illustrated this way. We earlier saw that the number of
atoms in the universe was estimated at 1078.
You could take these 1078
atoms and expand each one to the size of our own universe, with each
universe having 1078
atoms. The total number of atoms in all these 1078
universes would be 10157.
Yet we saw
that Bradley and Thaxton calculated the chance that one single protein
molecule would evolve at about one chance in 10191—odds
trillions of times larger than one chance in 10157.
The odds of
finally evolving just one man may be conservatively put at one chance
This is a figure with a trillion zeros. If written out in a single
line it would extend some 300,000 miles—and circle the earth 24 times.
It would require a million books just to print it! Yet again, beyond
one chance in 1050,
no chance remains—ever, even in all eternity, for an event to occur.
We hope the
above material has given the reader at least some small comprehension
of the faith of the evolutionist. It is, again, a wonderfully large
faith, a faith so large it fills the whole universe to produce
miracles without end.
Rimmer (SC.D., D.D.) was allegedly one of only 12 men around 1940
capable of understanding Einstein’s theory of relativity. He was
precisely correct when he wrote the following:
I fail to see how the
natural man can scoff at the faith of a Christian who believes in
one miracle of creation, when the unbeliever accepts multiplied
millions of miracles to justify his violation of every known law of
biology and every evidence of paleontology, and to cling to the
exploded myth of evolution.33
point in our discussion we have cited mostly creation scientists or
theists. Evolutionists may respond that creationists have a bias to
uphold and thus our methodology or conclusions are suspect. So in our
next two sections we will continue and amplify our probability
argument exclusively from the writings of evolutionists.
late Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the
chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34
This is a figure with two billion zeros after it and would require
about 2,000 books to write out. This number is so infinitely small it
is not even conceivable. So, for argument’s sake, let’s take an
infinitely more favorable view toward the chance that evolution might
What if the
chances are only 1 in 101000
the figure that a prestigious symposium of evolutionary scientists
used computers to arrive at? This figure involved only a mechanism
necessary to abiogenesis and not the evolution of actual primitive
life. Regardless, this figure is also infinitely above Borél’s single
law of chance—(1 chance in 1050)—beyond
which, put simply, events never occur.35
On April 25
and 26, 1962, this scientific symposium was held at the Wistar
Institute of Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in
which some of the most distinguished evolutionist scientists were
beginning of this Symposium, which was entitled, "Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution," the
Chairman, Sir Peter Medawar of the National Institute for Medical
Research in London, England, stated the reasons why they had gathered:
… the immediate cause of
this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction
about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary
theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian
Theory…. These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very
widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I
think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this
conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.36
paper, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific
Theory," Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT,
emphasized the following: "It is our contention that if "random"
[chance] is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a
probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly
implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must
await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical,
chemical and biological."37
"Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" Marcel P.
Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, France, calculated the
probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection. Like
many other noted scientists, he concluded that it was "not
conceivable" because the probability of a chance process accomplishing
this is zero:
… there is no chance
(<10-1000) to see this mechanism appear spontaneously
and, if it did, even less for it to remain…. Thus, to conclude, we
believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian Theory of
evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it
cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.38
scientists have called just 1 chance in 1015
"a virtual impossibility."39
So, how can they believe in something that has less than 1 chance in
all, how small is one chance in 101000?
It’s incredibly small—1 chance in 1012
is only one chance in a trillion.
further gauge the size of 1 in 101000
(a figure with a thousand zeros) by considering the sample figure 10171.
How large is this figure? First, consider again that the number of
atoms in the period at the end of this sentence is approximately 3,000
trillion. Now, in 10171
years an amoeba could actually transport all the atoms, one at a time,
in six hundred thousand, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion
universes, each universe the size of ours, from one end of the
universe to the other (assuming a distance of 30 billion light years)
going at the dismally slow traveling speed of 1 inch every 15 billion
amoeba could do all this in 10171
years. Yet this figure of one chance in 10171,
quite literally, cannot even scratch the surface of one chance in 101000—the
"chance" that a certain mechanism necessary to the beginning of life
might supposedly evolve. Again, who can believe in something whose
odds are 1 "chance" in 101000
to 1 "chance" in 102,000,000,000
or even far beyond this? As we saw earlier, Yale University physicist
Harold Morowitz once calculated the odds of a single bacteria
reassembling its components after being superheated to break down its
chemicals into their basic building blocks at 1 chance in 10100,000,000,000.41
And, in fact, when you add up all the different odds for all the
millions of miracles necessary for evolution, the actual "chances"
that life could evolve probably couldn’t even be adequately expressed
that in exponential notation, every time we add a single number in the
exponent, we multiply the number itself by a factor of ten. Thus, one
chance in 10172
is ten times larger than one chance in 10171.
One chance in 10177
is one million times larger than one chance in 10171.
And one chance in 10183
is one trillion times larger than one chance in 10171.
So where do you think we end up with odds like one chance in 10100,000,000,000?
In fact, the dimensions of the entire known universe can be packed
full by 1050
planets—but the odds of probability theory indicate that not on even a
single planet would evolution ever occur.42
This kind of
probability "progression into absurdity" is the very reason Borél
devised his single law of chance—to show that beyond a certain point
some things will never happen. For example, what are the odds that
televisions will evolve into elephants? There are none, no matter how
much time we allow for the event to occur. But this is essentially
what evolutionists ask us to believe—that dead matter plus time plus
chance produces life.
the argument we are making here is sometimes misunderstood. Dr.
Weldon’s uncle "Sam" once heard a minister deliver a sermon in church
regarding the odds against life originating by chance. The minister
was stating that, based on probability considerations, it was
"mathematically impossible" that the universe was created by chance.
The minister greeted "Sam" after the service and asked him what he
thought of the sermon. Sam replied that he had "two serious problems
with it." The first was that even if there was one in a zillion
chances that the universe was created by chance, then the conclusion
that it was mathematically impossible for the universe to originate by
chance was not valid. Even one chance in a zillion is still one chance
and therefore mathematically possible. The second objection was that
if there are an infinite number of opportunities for an event to occur
then the odds could increase infinitely so that sooner or later the
event would occur.
this misses the whole point behind Borél’s single law of chance. Once
we arrive at a certain point in probability considerations, no chance
remains regardless of the amount of opportunities that are present.
Anything beyond one chance in 1050
is not one chance in 1050
but 0 chance. And, as we have seen, the "chance" of evolution
occurring is infinitely less than this. Probability considerations are
important and do offer valid conclusions in the creation-evolution
debate. They tell us there is no chance evolution will ever occur even
if the universe is infinitely old.
Evolutionists respond the only way that they can. They say that given
enough time even the impossible becomes possible. Nobel Prize winning
biologist George Wald of Harvard University once wrote, "One only has
to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we
are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."43
proceeds to discuss what he means by "impossible." Not unexpectedly,
he claims that the word "is not a very meaningful concept."44
He goes on to say that, in terms of originating life, "Time is in fact
the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the
order of 2 billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of
human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the
‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable
virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the
probability considerations, on what logical basis does Dr. Wald go
from the impossible to the "virtually certain"? Wald is arguing as a
committed materialist who has great faith in the magical powers of
matter. Even though evolution is impossible, it really can’t be
impossible because after all, here we are. Later he states, "We can be
certain that, given time, all these things [necessary to evolution]
must occur. Every substance that has ever been found in an organism
displays thereby the finite probability of its occurrence. Hence,
given time, it should arise spontaneously. One only has to wait."46
What we are
dealing with here is word games; the impossible is really possible; an
event is conceded as impossible so we invoke infinite time and
material to make it "possible."
himself has stated that a 99.999% probability is "almost inevitable."47
A little calculation shows that Wald’s initial statement that
spontaneous generation was impossible is far closer to the truth than
he himself proceeds to argue in his own chapter.
impossible is defined in the dictionary as, "Not possible, unable to
be done or to exist" and "not capable of coming into being or
occurring." Also, we don’t have infinite time, we only have a few
billion years even by evolutionists calculations and these
calculations themselves are suspect. Nor do we have anywhere near
infinite material; it was quite finite and limited. Thus, if an event
is truly impossible, then it will never occur by definition even given
infinite time and material. "…as Saki wisely observed: Those who use
‘chance’ to argue that ‘anything is possible’ have reached the
antithesis of science, whose laws are based upon the assumption that
some things occur and others do not."48
Evolutionists should reconsider the following statement from a
standard evolutionary text on the origin of life. The Origin of
Pre-biological Systems, edited by Sidney W. Fox, states:
A further aspect I should
like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape
clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the
conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero.
This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical
principles as Wigner demonstrated (1961).49
Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize and one of the foremost brain
scientists in this century speaks of one chance in 1010,000
as being "infinitely improbable," noting that "materialists’ solutions
fail to account for our experienced uniqueness" and that therefore "we
are constrained to attribute uniqueness of the psyche or soul to a
supernatural spiritual creation…. We submit that no other explanation
We can only
wonder, what kind of logic deduces that the infinitely more complex
things in nature resulted from chance when all the facts and evidence
we possess concerning every single man-made object in existence around
the world says these much simpler objects had to result from
intelligence, plan and design? If the "simple" objects demand
intelligence, how do the infinitely more complex objects not demand it
in ultimate terms, there are only two possible answers to the question
of origins, then the disproving of one should logically prove the
other. If the chances of evolution occurring are e.g., "one" in 101,000,000,000,000,
then the chance of creation occurring would have to be its
opposite—the odds being 99.9 (followed by one trillion more 9’s).
Again, George Wald of Harvard has stated that a 99.995% probability is
Then what of 99.999999999999999 (plus one trillion more 9’s)?—the
"chance" that creation has occurred?
Thus, it is
not surprising to hear famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle originator of
the Steady State theory of the origin of the universe concede that the
chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary
processes is comparable with the chance that a "tornado sweeping
through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material
As he ponders the magnificence of the world about him, even the
outstanding French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod
admits in his Chance and Necessity:
One may well
find oneself beginning to doubt again whether all this could
conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by
natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers
drawn at utter random…. [Nevertheless although] the miracle [of life]
stands "explained"; it does not strike us as any less miraculous. As
Francois Mauriac wrote, "What this professor says is far more
incredible than what we poor Christians believe."53
Monod believes that life arose by chance, he freely admits the chances
of this happening before it occurred were virtually zero:
remains, and in so doing masks the answer to a question of profound
interest. Life appeared on earth: what, before the event were the
chances that this would occur? The present structure of the biosphere
far from excludes the possibility that the decisive event occurred
only once. Which would mean that its a priori probability was
The Myth of
A number of
reputable scientists have stated their belief that evolution is a
myth. In the following material we are going to briefly amplify this
idea by concentrating on the myth of chance and what faith in chance
does to science. In Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science
& Cosmology, theologian and apologist R. C. Sproul points out that
mythology was not only practiced by pre-modern cultures. It occurs in
every culture and has even intruded significantly into the realm of
science, e.g., in the spontaneous generation theory of evolution, that
all life arose from dead matter solely by chance. He shows that the
concept of chance—something happening totally without cause—is
impossible. Again, the Macmillan Dictionary for Students (1984)
defines impossible as, "not capable of coming into being or
occurring"; "not possible" and "not acceptable as truth."
modern science argues that the universe and all life in it arose
solely by chance. In the words of Nobelist Jacques Monod, "…chance
alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the
biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very
root of the stupendous edifice of evolution…."55
argues persuasively that, for science and philosophy to continue in
fruitful fashion, the modern penchant for chance must be abandoned
once and for all. If not, the stakes are not insignificant—the very
possibility of doing science lies in the balance. Essentially, when
logic and empirical data are neglected or neutralized in the doing of
science, then "mythology is free to run wild."56
science’s assigning the origin of the universe and all life in it to
pure, random chance does an incalculable disservice to science because
investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity. Half of the
scientific method is left impaled on the horns of chance. The
classical scientific method consists of the marriage of induction
and deduction, of the empirical and the rational. Attributing
instrumental causal power to chance vitiates deduction and the
rational. It is manifest irrationality, which is not only bad
philosophy but horrible science as well. Perhaps the attributing of
instrumental power to chance is the most serious error made in
modern science and cosmology… if left unchallenged and uncorrected,
[it] will lead science into nonsense…. Magic and logic are not
compatible bedfellows. Once something is thought to come from
nothing, something has to give. What gives is logic.57
explain nothing because chance itself is nothing: "chance has no power
to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent…. It
has no power because it has no being."58
One of the most inviolate and oldest laws of science is Ex nihilo
nihil fit—"Out of nothing, nothing comes." When scientists ascribe
absolute power to nothing, they are creating myths. Here, chance is
the "magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear
out of nothing."59
again the Nobel-laureate and Harvard Professor Dr. George Wald when he
stated concerning the evolution of life, "Given so much time, the
‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable
virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the
indeed the hero of the plot in the modern evolutionary storybook.
Professor Abdus Salam, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, comments
that one reason the Big Bang occurred ten billion years ago was that
"it takes about that long for intelligent beings to evolve…."61
Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine comments in a
similar fashion, "You cannot make life out of hydrogen and helium, and
that was the original stuff. You have to have the time for the
creation of all the extraordinary elements that are necessary for
living existence, and so you will have to have, shall we say,
something like 10,000 million years from the Big Bang...."62
is not the hero and cannot perform miracles. To argue otherwise
violates the laws of science, logic and common sense. Regardless, how
did the universe exist forever and then do in time (i.e., create life)
what it had not done forever?
Here is magic with a
vengeance. Not only does the impossible become possible; it reaches
the acme of certainty—with time serving as the Grand Master
In a world where a
miracle-working God is deemed an anachronism, an even greater
miracle-worker replaces him: time or chance. I say these twin
miracle workers are greater than God because they produce the same
result with so much less, indeed infinitely less, to work with.
God is conceived as a
self-existent, eternal being who possesses inextricably the power of
being. Such power is a sufficient cause for creation. Time and
chance have no being, and consequently no power. Yet they are able
to be so effective as to render God an anachronism. At least with
God we have a potential miracle-worker. With chance we have nothing
with which to work the miracle. Chance offers us a rabbit without a
hat and—what’s even more astonishing—without a magician.63
Wilder-Smith, holding three earned doctorates in science, put it this
Present-day biology has
also discovered a magic wand which solves all biological and
chemical problems with one wave of the wand. Does the origin of the
most complicated machinery of a protein molecule need explanation?
Do we need to explain how optical isomers are formed? Do we wish to
know why the wings of certain butterflies are decorated with eagle’s
eyes? The magic wand called chance and natural selection will
without exception explain all of these miracles. It explains the
origin of the most complicated biological machine—the enzymatic
protein molecule. The explanation is fabulous—machines are formed of
their own accord, spontaneously, just as the waving of a magic wand
would demand. The same wand explains the billions of teleonomical
electrical contacts in the brain. It explains the almost infinitely
complicated wiring of the computer called the brain.64
as Wilder-Smith argues, it doesn’t explain anything. Further, to argue
as modern science does that the universe "exploded into being"
billions of years ago require the belief that the universe exploded
from nonbeing into being. Since science has proven that matter cannot
be eternal, this phrase must be taken literally. But to do so requires
more faith in magic and is, in effect, a faith in self-creation,
which, as Sproul shows, is something logically impossible. Thus:
We can hardly resist the
inference that that which exploded, since it was not yet in being,
was nonbeing, or nothing. This we call self-creation by another
name. This is so absurd that, upon reflection, it seems to be
downright silly. It is so evidently contradictory and illogical that
it must represent a straw-man argument. No sober scientist would
really go so far as to suggest such a self-contradictory theory,
would they? Unfortunately, they would and they do. This raises
questions about the soberness of the scientists involved. But
generally these are not silly people who make such silly statements.
Far from it. They number some of the most well-credentialed and
erudite scholars in the world, who make a prophet out of Aristotle
when he said that in the minds of the brightest men often reside the
corner of a fool. In other words, brilliant people are capable of
making the most foolish errors. That is understandable, given our
frailties as mortals. What is not so understandable are the ardent
attempts people make to justify such foolishness.65
there is much more going on here than poor science. In Romans 1:18-25
we are told that the unregenerate deliberately suppress the truth of
God as Creator. Here the truth is suppressed by the rejection of the
laws of science such as the law of causality, the law of
noncontradiction and the law of biogenesis, that life arises only from
life. That the rejection of scientific principles, laws and reasoning
should be so forcefully employed in defense of what is inherently
irrational and impossible (the creation of the universe from nothing),
is surely a commentary on the condition of modern origins science.
because God has created us as rational creatures, it may even be
argued that modern science’s sin against reason is a sin against God.
Scientists should know better. And, generally, in their rational
moments they do. They know the universe didn’t arise from literally
nothing. The suppression of truth is to try and make it seem as if it
did. That is the sin. Most scientists, it seems, prefer to disguise
their belief in magic by making the idea of chance origins appear
scientific and rational. Why? Because often they do not personally
like the consequences of having to seriously consider the implications
of a personal creator God who will hold them accountable in this life.
Given the odds against evolution and for creation, this is an unwise
position at best. The conclusions of Solomon still stand:
Let us hear the
conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments:
for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work
into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good, or
whether it be evil. (Eccl. 12:13-14)
1 Dr. Monty Kester, "Is
Organic Evolution Reasonable?" in Science at the Crossroads:
Observation or Speculation?, Proceedings of the 1983 National
Creation Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bible Science
Association 1985, p. 107.
2 W. R. Bird, The Origin
of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt
Appearance, Vol. 1 (New York: Philosophical Library, 1991), p. 80.
3 E. Ambrose, The Nature
and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p.142 [This is assuming
natural selection did not increase the probability, which would not
happen, as Bird discusses in Section 3.3(a).] In Ibid., p. 79.
4 Cf., Bird, Vol. 1 pp.
5 Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message, p. 257, cited in Wayne Frair, Book Review,
Creation Research Society Quarterly, Dec. 1994, p. 163.
6 Moshe Trop, "Was
Evolution Really Possible?" Creation Research Society Quarterly,
March 1975, p. 187, emphasis added.
7 David J. Rodabaugh,
"The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools," Creation Research
Society Quarterly, June 1975, p. 14, emphasis added.
8 David J. Rodabaugh,
"Mathematicians Do It Again," Creation Research Society Quarterly,
Dec. 1975, pp. 173-175, emphasis added.
9 Cited in James Coppedge,
Evolution Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1973), p. 260.
10 James F. Coppedge,
"Probability and Left-Handed Molecules," Creation Research Society
Quarterly, Dec. 1971, p. 172.
11 Ibid., p. 171.
12 See John Ankerberg,
John Weldon, Ready with an Answer (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997),
especially pp. 220-228.
13 Fred Hoyle, The Big
Bang in Astronomy, p. 527, emphasis added.
14 Cited in Evan Shute,
Flaws in the Theory of Evolution (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1971),
15 Harold F. Blum, Time’s
Arrow and Evolution (2nd ed., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
16 Walter L. Bradley and
Charles B. Thaxton, "Information and the Origin of Life" in J. P.
Moreland (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis (IVP, 1994), p. 190.
17 Ibid., emphasis added;
cf., William A. Dembski, "Reviving the Argument from Design:
Detecting Design Through Small Probabilities," Proceedings of the
Biennial Conference of the Association of Christians in the
Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 8, (1991), pp. 101-145.
18 Coppedge, Evolution
Possible or Impossible? See the additional refs. in Darwin’s Leap of
Faith, p. 371.
19 Coppedge, Evolution,
21 David J. Rodabough,
"The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools," Creation Research
Society Quarterly, June 1975, p. 15.
22 See Coppedge,
Evolution, for an extended discussion.
23 Cited in Nature,
November 12, 1981, p. 105, emphasis added.
24 Cited in Mark Eastman,
Chuck Missler, The Creator Beyond Time and Space, (Costa Mesa, CA:
TWFT, 1996), p. 61.
25 Robert Shapiro,
Origins—A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, 1986, p.
26 Eastman and Missler,
27 Howard Byington
Holroyd, "Darwinism is Physical and Mathematical Nonsense" Creation
Research Society Quarterly. June 1972, pp. 6, 9.
28 Ibid., p. 10.
29 Ibid, p. 12.
30 Ibid., p. 13.
31 Ibid., p. 12.
32 John Ankerberg, John
Weldon, The Case for Jesus the Messiah (Chattanooga, TN: Ankerberg
Theological Research Institute, 1992).
33 Harry Rimmer, The
Magnificence of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), p. 116.
34 Carl Sagan, F. H. C.
Crick, L. M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication With
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp.
35 Emile Borél,
Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962), Chs. 1 and 3;
Borél’s cosmic limit of 10200 changes nothing.
36 Paul S. Moorhead,
Martin M. Kaplan (eds.), Mathematical Challenges to the NeoDarwinist
Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph
Number 5 (Philadelphia, PA: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p.
xi, third emphasis in original.
37 Murray Eden,
"Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism Evolution as a Scientific Theory" in
38 Marcel P.
Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of
Evolution" in Moorhead and Kaplan, eds., 75; cf., Bird, I, 79-80;
for reasons why natural selection would not modify randomness and
decrease these probabilities, see Bird, I, 158-165.
39 J. Allen Hynek, Jacque
Vallee, The Edge of Reality (Chicago, IL: Henry Regenery, 1975), p.
40 Coppedge, Evolution,
41 Cited in Eastman,
Missler, The Creator Beyond Time and Space, p. 61.
42 cf., Frank B.
Salisbury, "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,"
Nature, Vol. 24, October 25, 1969, pp. 342-343 and James Coppedge,
Director Center for Probability Research and Biology, North Ridge,
California, personal conversation; cf., Coppedge, Evolution:
Possible or Impossible?, passim.
43 George Wald, "The
Origin of Life" in Editors of Scientific American, The Physics and
Chemistry of Life (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1955), p. 9.
44 Ibid., p. 10.
45 Ibid., p. 12.
46 Ibid., p. 15.
47 Ibid., p. 12.
48 Gary A. Parker, "The
Origin of Life on Earth," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Sept.
1970, p. 101.
49 Sidney W. Fox (ed.),
The Origin of Prebiological Systems (NY: Academic Press, 1965, p.
50 Sir John Eccles,
Daniel N. Robinson, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our
Mind (Boston: Shambhala/New Science Library, 1985), p. 43.
51 George Wald in The
Physics and Chemistry of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955), p.
52 Sir Fred Hoyle, "Hoyle
on Evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105.
53 Jacques Monod, Chance
and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
(New York: Vintage, 1971), pp. 138-139.
54 Jacques Monod, Chance
and Necessity: An Essay on The Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
(New York: Vintage, 1971), cf., James Coppedge, Evolution: Possible
or Impossible?; cf. the following: Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study
in Probabilities; Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
(Rockville, MN: Woodbine House, 1986) pp. 308-327; John M. Andresen,
"Notes on the Use of Statistics in the Debate of Creation vs.
Evolution," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1980, 160-162;
Moshe Trop, "Was Evolution Really Possible?," Creation Research
Society Quarterly, March 1975, 183-187; Holroyd, "Darwinism is
Physical and Mathematical Nonsense" pp. 5-13; Charles B. Thaxton,
Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories, (New York Philosophical Library,
1984); Julio Garrido, "Evolution and Molecular Biology," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, Dec. 1973, 166-169; Larry Butler, "A
Problem of Missing Links at the Ultimate Primary Stage of
Evolution," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Dec. 1969, 128;
David J. Rodabaugh, "Mathematicians Do It Again," Creation Research
Society Quarterly, Dec. 1975, pp. 173-75).
55 Monod, Chance and
Necessity, pp. 112-13, emphasis added.
56 R. C. Sproul, Not a
Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), p. xiv; cf., R. J. Rushdoony, The
Mythology of Modern Science.
57 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
58 Ibid., p. 6.
59 Ibid., p. 9.
60 George Wald, "The
Origin of Life" in The Physics and Chemistry of Life, Ed., the
editors of Scientific American (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1955), pp. 9,
61 Abdus Salam, "Science
and Religion: Reflections on Transcendence and Secularization" in
Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos:
Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe,
Life, and Homo Sapiens (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1994), p. 100.
62 John Eccles, "A Divine
Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese, (eds.)
63 Sproul, pp. 14-15.
64 A. E. Wilder-Smith,
The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego, CA:
Master Books, 1981), p. 26.
65 Sproul, pp. 15-16.